EBM v Esoteric or ancient theories in Medicine

[Guest guest]

Hi Dietrich, & All,

 

Dietrich wrote:

> Hi Phil ... Your question of order of needles is not tested.

 

That is why I raised it on several lists. As I suspected, nobody

could cite research papers that had tested that idea.

 

We MUST remember that much valuable information [as well as

much bunkum] is undocumented in science literature. Also, some

experienced practitioners said that their clinical experience [in

humans] confirmed [to them] that needling sequence IS important

in some cases. So far, I have not found that to be so for me, but I

am still a novice in the area.

 

> Moreover, the specific points you mentioned haven't been tested to

> do as they are indicated according to 5 phase theory. Has there

> even been any attempt to test 5 phase point reliability beyond

> anecdote?

 

I have not seen any good reports of scientific testing of 5 Phase

Theory. But TCM, in general, has received very little systematic

testing either. For example, work out the ratio of Medline titles on

" western medicine " to those on TCM-related topics. My estimate is

a ratio of circa 240/1 (12,000,000/50,000).

 

If " Medline citations " is the critical index (which, IMO, it is NOT),

TCM has a long way to go before it can be said to be " on a par "

with western medicine.

 

> I've a feeling 5 phase is accepted on nothing more than TCM

> theory ...

 

There are differences between feelings and facts. Much of what we

feel/believe/do has not been confirmed scientifically, or does not

stand up well to scientific scrutiny.

 

We all search for truth, but there are two sides to truth - objective

and subjective. Because " science " (objective?) has not confirmed

the existence of God, or the soul, must we say that they are not

real? For me, they ARE real, although I cannot prove that to

anyone else.

 

Science has documented physiological changes in humans and

animals during dreaming and REM sleep. But has science ever

" captured " , dissected, or displayed a DREAM itself? If not, must

we say that dreams are not real?

 

From discussion on the lists, and from my observation of the

practices of others, 5-Phase Theory HAS some validity in both

diagnosis and treatment. Based on 5-Phase Theory, some TCM

Syndromes [for example KI Not Grasping LU Qi, or LV Overacting

on SP] are real clinical entities, and their effective treatment tries to

address the root.

 

For example, asthma due to KI not Grasping LU Qi are treated

differently [especially in traditional Chinese herbal medicine] from

cases due to LU Qi Xu. Also and nausea/vomiting from LV

Overacting on ST are treated differently from those due to, for

example, ST Heat or Xu Cold of the Middle Jiao.

 

Western-oriented AP (based mainly on trigger points, Ahshi points,

neurophysiological- and reflex- theory, Cookbook Point selection,

etc) can be very successful in " simple " (1-2 symptom) cases, and

in sports medicine. Also, IMO, knowledge of TCM Theory need not

be as deep to practise good AP as it must be to practise good

herbal medicine.

 

However, IMO, the more TCM Theory one knows, the better one

can be as an acupuncturist, especially in complex cases.

 

> ... [it is] interesting (according to many who've spent time there)

> that Chinese practitioners have in the main abandoned

> [5-Phase-based] acupuncture. IMO its because its so unreliable.

 

Many Chinese practitioners have become fixated on Western

ways, and are losing their great medical heritage. You may be

correct that AP based on 5-Phase theory is becoming rare in

China, but my contacts suggest that 5-Phase AP is alive and well

in the West.

 

Marvin Cain's " AP Diagnosis and Treatment of the Equine " (4th

Edition, 2003) still puts high value on 5-Phase Theory. Marvin was

one of my first teachers in AP. I respect him greatly, even if I

disagree with some aspects of his approaches.

 

Worsley was one of the main pioneers of 5-Phase AP in the west.

His students, now practitioners, use that theory routinely, and

claim great clinical success with it. They also put great spress on

use of the " Spirit Points " [Pohu, Shentang, etc], which are related

to the 5 Yin organs in 5-Phase Theory] in cases that manifest with

mental/emotional problems.

 

> More interesting is the Chinese never applied the methods you

> describe below [[5-Phase Balancing methods in AP] to animals...

 

You are probably correct, but I leave it to Yann-ching and other

Chinese members to answer this. However, in China, veterinary AP

was never as well developed, or as well documented or taught, as

human AP. IMO, western vet AP is more developed, and embraces

all aspects of traditional and modern theory.

 

> ... so it is completely a Western invention to try it. How can

> anyone believe such a practice in animals is justified? Best

> wishes, Dietrich

 

Dietrich, belief is conditioned by many factors: family, culture,

education, experience, discussion, etc. Basically, it is personal

and experiential and sometimes not based on " scientifically

proven " fact in the usual sense of that term. Few people change

strongly held beliefs lightly.

 

Medicine is, and I hope will remain, an Art-Science. IMO, invention,

innovation and trying to do better are good. We do NOT have to

become stuck on one treatment method. As Jen-hsou Lin wrote,

WE can use any method, or theory, provided that it be true (i.e.

that it gives good results).

 

The examples in my earlier note arose from the discussion on the

importance, or otherwise of the sequence of AP needling. Those

examples were theoretical, to show that imbalances within and

between the organs & their Phases may be addressed.

 

In practice, I rarely select AP points based on 5-Phase Theory

alone. More often, I use Distant Points, Mother or Son Points,

occasionally Ting points.

 

But if I diagnose, for example, a LU Xu, I may needle LU at its

Earth (Mother) Pt (LU09), and may also needle SP (LU Mother) an

its Metal Pt (SP05), as well as the 2 Shu Pts (BL13 + BL20).

 

I respect the desire of sincere colleagues to make medicine more

scientifically-based. I also respect the art of colleagues who use

ancient esoteric (and often apparently irrational) theories to great

clinical effect.

 

In summary, like AP, 5-Phase Theory is only a part of TCM. It is

useful in some cases, and ignored in others.To each his/her own

way.

 

PVA-L and PA-L have a broad mix of practitioners, ranging from

those who use modern scientific theory almost exclusively, to

those who are deep into TCM theory and practise. It also includes

many TCM herbalists, who place high value on TCM Theory.

 

To maintain peace on the Lists, I do not want further discussions

on EBM v ancient or esoteric theories in medicine to develop into a

flame war.

 

DIscussion (even heavy argument on the ISSUES) is OK, but let us

keep it courteous and impersonal. And let us recognise that people

hold strong views / beliefs on both sides of this discussion.

 

 

 

Best regards,

 

Email: <

 

WORK : Teagasc Research Management, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

 

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

[Guest guest]

--- < wrote:

> DIscussion (even heavy argument on the ISSUES) is

> OK, but let us keep it courteous and impersonal.

 

Couteous and personal would be even better from my

POV, but I'm latino, so I like a little um

'personality'. It's who I am, right.

 

> And let us recognise that people hold strong

> views / beliefs on both sides of this discussion.

 

Thanks for your POV Phil. I appreciate your posts.

Very instructive, if a little impersonal. Just

kidding.

 

Bye,

Hugo

 

 

 

 

 

__________

Messenger - Communicate instantly... " Ping "

your friends today! Download Messenger Now

http://uk.messenger./download/index.html

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " "

<@e...> wrote:

>

> If " Medline citations " is the critical index (which, IMO, it is

NOT),

> TCM has a long way to go before it can be said to be " on a par "

> with western medicine.

 

A major problem with Medline, PubMed, or Science Direct etc., is

that they are very limited in the journals that are included in

their databases. All TCM EBM literature reviews that are only based

on these sources for identifying articles or research are thus

biased.

 

Cynthia Ferre

[Guest guest]

Hi Phil!

 

Interesting post, thanks for that! I see Science as a newcomer to TCM,

having previously been mostly History and Art. In my opinion, science is

examining TCM, but is not yet shaping it.

 

At 10:27 AM 4/27/2004, you wrote:<snip>

>I have not seen any good reports of scientific testing of 5 Phase

>Theory. But TCM, in general, has received very little systematic

>testing either.

 

Regards,

 

Pete